The effectiveness and safety of proton radiation therapy for indications of the eye : a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: : Proton radiation has been used for the treatment of uveal melanoma since 1975, but few studies have been conducted to assess its efficacy and safety. This paper aims to systematically review the effects and side effects of proton therapy for any indication of the eye. MATERIAL AND METHODS: : A range of databases were searched from inception to 2007. All studies that included at least ten patients and that assessed the efficacy or safety of proton therapy for any indication of the eye were included. RESULTS: : The search generated 2,385 references, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. Five controlled trials, two comparative studies and 30 case series were found, most often reporting on uveal melanoma, choroidal melanoma and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methodological quality of these studies was poor. Studies were characterized by large differences in radiation techniques applied within the studies, and by variation in patient characteristics within and between studies. Results for uveal melanoma and choroidal melanoma suggest favorable survival, with, however, significant rates of side effects. Results for choroidal hemangioma and AMD did not reveal beneficial effects from proton radiation. CONCLUSION: : There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of proton radiation due to the lack of well-designed and well-reported studies. There is a need to lift evidence on proton therapy to a higher level by performing dose-finding randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative studies of proton radiation versus standard given alternatives and prospective case studies enrolling only patients treated with up-to-date techniques, allowing extrapolation of results to similar patient groups.

Modern cataract surgery for radiation-induced cataracts in retinoblastoma

Surgery of radiation-induced cataracts in children with retinoblastoma (RB) is a challenge as early intervention is weighted against the need to delay surgery until complete tumour control is obtained. This study analyses the safety and functional results of such surgery.

Body CT: technical advances for improving safety

OBJECTIVE: In this review, we attempt to address many of the issues that are related to ensuring patient benefit in body CT, balancing the use of ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast media. We attempt to not only summarize the literature but also make recommendations relevant to CT protocols, including the technical parameters of both the scanner and the associated contrast media. CONCLUSION: Although CT is a powerful tool that has transformed the practice of medicine, the benefits are accompanied by important risks. Radiologists must understand these risks and the strategies available to minimize them as well as the risks associated with contrast medium delivery in abdominal CT.

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials.

Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life After Dose-Intensified Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Prostatectomy: First Results of the Randomized Trial SAKK 09/10

PURPOSE Patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy may benefit from dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy (SRT) of the prostate bed. We performed a randomized phase III trial assessing dose intensification. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with BF but without evidence of macroscopic disease were randomly assigned to either 64 or 70 Gy. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy/rotational techniques were used. The primary end point was freedom from BF. Secondary end points were acute toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and PR25. RESULTS Three hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2011 and April 2014. Three patients withdrew informed consent, and three patients were not eligible, resulting in 344 patients age 48 to 75 years in the safety population. Thirty patients (8.7%) had grade 2 and two patients (0.6%) had grade 3 genitourinary (GU) baseline symptoms. Acute grade 2 and 3 GU toxicity was observed in 22 patients (13.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy and in 29 patients (16.6%) and three patients (1.7%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .2). Baseline grade 2 GI toxicity was observed in one patient (0.6%). Acute grade 2 and 3 GI toxicity was observed in 27 patients (16.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy, and in 27 patients (15.4%) and four patients (2.3%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .8). Changes in early QoL were minor. Patients receiving 70 Gy reported a more pronounced and clinically relevant worsening in urinary symptoms (mean difference in change score between arms, 3.6; P = .02). CONCLUSION Dose-intensified SRT was associated with low rates of acute grade 2 and 3 GU and GI toxicity. The impact of dose-intensified SRT on QoL was minor, except for a significantly greater worsening in urinary symptoms.

Contrast agents and ionization with respect to safety for patients and doctors

In hemodialysis patients, radiographic imaging with iodinated contrast medium (ICM) application plays a central role in the diagnosis and/or follow-up of disease-related conditions. Therefore, safety aspects concerning ICM administration and radiation exposure have a great impact on this group of patients. Current hardware and software improvements including the design and synthesis of modern contrast compounds allow the use of very small amounts of ICM in concert with low radiation exposure. Undesirable ICM side effects are divided into type A (predictable reactions such as heat feeling, headache, and contrast-induced acute kidney injury, for example) and type B (nonpredictable or hypersensitivity) reactions; this chapter deals with the latter. The first onset cannot be prevented. To prevent hypersensitivity upon reexposure of ICM, an allergological workup is recommended. If this is not possible and ICM is necessary, the patient should receive a premedication (H1 antihistamine with or without corticosteroids). Current imaging hardware and software improvements (e.g. such as additional filtration of the X-ray beam) allow the use of very small amount of ICM and small X-ray doses. Proper communication among the team involved in the treatment of a patient may allow to apply imaging protocols and efficient imaging strategies limiting radiation exposure to a minimum. Practical recommendations will guide the reader how to use radiation and ICM efficiently to improve both patient and staff safety.